DATABASE

Matrix One Too Good to Be True

Published: Friday, December 14, 2012 at 10:54 p.m.

Last Modified: Friday, December 14, 2012 at 10:54 p.m.

As today's column unfolded over the last few months, I was reminded of an old joke:

A fellow sees a luxury car advertised for $45,000 — $10,000 under the going rate. He goes into the dealership but is told they don't have any of them.

He stops at another dealership, and asks if they have the same car. "Yes," said the salesman, sweeping his arm toward the auto, "it's $55,000." The prospective buyer is taken back: "But the dealership across town is selling them for $45,000. I'd buy it, but they don't have one in their showroom."

To which came the reply: "If I didn't have one, I could sell it to you for $30,000."

In August, a California-based public-relations company asked if I'd be interested in taking a look at a new 7-inch tablet a client of theirs was marketing. It had two selling points:

First, its $99 price tag made it one of the first tablets (at least at that time) to break the $100 barrier. Second, it came with a lifetime replacement guarantee. Even if it was returned with a broken screen, there was a one-time replacement included with the price.

Sure, I said, let's see it in action. Fine, they said. It'll be there in a day or two.

It didn't show up. I called about it after a week. They got back with me and said they had checked, and their client had assured them it would be sent out that very day. A week went by. No tablet.

The PR company suggested I contact the company directly and gave me an email address of the company and that of its CEO. Several emails sent over the course of a month were never answered.

Meanwhile, I started doing some checking into the company.

The tablet was the Matrix One. It was being sold by Direct Merchandise Marketing, run by Robert Klayman. There was no question the tablet existed — there were videos of it on several blogs, but it was unclear how many of them there were to purchase. The trademark for the Matrix One had been filed for in early June, two months before the PR firm contacted me about a review of the product.

Klayman, as it turns out, is also CEO of a call center. According to its website, he "produced and marketed over 100 direct-response programs including infomercials, short form commercials, videos, and print ads ... Klayman made the Ginsu knife a household name over 20 years ago, and was one of the first promoters of the infomercial concept in the late-1980s."

Not only was Ginsu knives on the Klayman resumé, but the call center also was involved in the business of psychic hotlines.

Somehow, the combination of Ginsu knives, psychics and infomercials tends to make tech writers a bit leery.

By this time, August had turned into September and then October. Emails to Klayman and the Matrix One website went unanswered. And when I got back in touch with the PR firm handling the account, I was told they could no longer comment: Litigation was in the works and Matrix One was no longer a client. A spokesman for the PR company said it since has brought suit against Klayman for nonpayment of its fees.

A week ago, the Matrix One website was showing its product as out of stock. This week, the website consisted of only a one-page notice to customers, saying in part that the company supplying glass to make the tablets had the glass on back order; another factory didn't have the correct chips for the tablet.

And then, "Once we received our shipment, we tried to ship, but found out we could not access Google Wallet, our online credit card processor. Due to the amount of complaints for delays in delivery that Google Wallet had received from our customers, Google decided to shut down our account without notice to us."

The notice concluded: "We immediately stopped accepting orders when we started incurring delays in shipping of the product and will not accept new orders until all of our affected customers have been refunded and we are well stocked with inventory."

Writing for the Engadget website last week, Jon Fingus recounted his attempts to reach Klayman: "We tried getting in touch with Klayman to set the record straight, but this just underscored what looks to be his (and DMM's) rapid retreat from public scrutiny. He never responded after we pinged three phone numbers and two email addresses...

"We don't know for certain whether the company just mismanaged its crisis handling or forged ahead knowing that problems were coming," Fingus continued. "At a minimum, it's been dishonest in the wake of shipping troubles. For the number of customers who did get their orders, there are still many who were either left in the dark or were told shipping had started when it clearly hadn't."

Fingus wrote that he'd "spoken to a source close to the company" who "reinforced our suspicions that management was a significant issue, but otherwise reiterated the company's official position that customs delays (in both the United States and China) triggered problems."

Concluded Fingus: "Much as we'd suspected, the Matrix One may just be too good to be true."

Google, according to the Matrix One webpage, "has informed us that they have begun to refund customers."

As for the $99 tablet, it's time to rework the stale punch line: If I didn't have them, I could sell you one for $50.

[ Lonnie Brown has written the computer column for The Ledger for more than 30 years. He can be reached by e-mail at LedgerDatabase@aol.com. ]

<p>As today's column unfolded over the last few months, I was reminded of an old joke:</p><p>A fellow sees a luxury car advertised for $45,000 — $10,000 under the going rate. He goes into the dealership but is told they don't have any of them.</p><p>He stops at another dealership, and asks if they have the same car. "Yes," said the salesman, sweeping his arm toward the auto, "it's $55,000." The prospective buyer is taken back: "But the dealership across town is selling them for $45,000. I'd buy it, but they don't have one in their showroom."</p><p>To which came the reply: "If I didn't have one, I could sell it to you for $30,000."</p><p>In August, a California-based public-relations company asked if I'd be interested in taking a look at a new 7-inch tablet a client of theirs was marketing. It had two selling points:</p><p>First, its $99 price tag made it one of the first tablets (at least at that time) to break the $100 barrier. Second, it came with a lifetime replacement guarantee. Even if it was returned with a broken screen, there was a one-time replacement included with the price.</p><p>Sure, I said, let's see it in action. Fine, they said. It'll be there in a day or two.</p><p>It didn't show up. I called about it after a week. They got back with me and said they had checked, and their client had assured them it would be sent out that very day. A week went by. No tablet.</p><p>The PR company suggested I contact the company directly and gave me an email address of the company and that of its CEO. Several emails sent over the course of a month were never answered.</p><p>Meanwhile, I started doing some checking into the company.</p><p>The tablet was the Matrix One. It was being sold by Direct Merchandise Marketing, run by Robert Klayman. There was no question the tablet existed — there were videos of it on several blogs, but it was unclear how many of them there were to purchase. The trademark for the Matrix One had been filed for in early June, two months before the PR firm contacted me about a review of the product.</p><p>Klayman, as it turns out, is also CEO of a call center. According to its website, he "produced and marketed over 100 direct-response programs including infomercials, short form commercials, videos, and print ads ... Klayman made the Ginsu knife a household name over 20 years ago, and was one of the first promoters of the infomercial concept in the late-1980s."</p><p>Not only was Ginsu knives on the Klayman resumé, but the call center also was involved in the business of psychic hotlines.</p><p>Somehow, the combination of Ginsu knives, psychics and infomercials tends to make tech writers a bit leery.</p><p>By this time, August had turned into September and then October. Emails to Klayman and the Matrix One website went unanswered. And when I got back in touch with the PR firm handling the account, I was told they could no longer comment: Litigation was in the works and Matrix One was no longer a client. A spokesman for the PR company said it since has brought suit against Klayman for nonpayment of its fees.</p><p>A week ago, the Matrix One website was showing its product as out of stock. This week, the website consisted of only a one-page notice to customers, saying in part that the company supplying glass to make the tablets had the glass on back order; another factory didn't have the correct chips for the tablet.</p><p>And then, "Once we received our shipment, we tried to ship, but found out we could not access Google Wallet, our online credit card processor. Due to the amount of complaints for delays in delivery that Google Wallet had received from our customers, Google decided to shut down our account without notice to us."</p><p>The notice concluded: "We immediately stopped accepting orders when we started incurring delays in shipping of the product and will not accept new orders until all of our affected customers have been refunded and we are well stocked with inventory."</p><p>Writing for the Engadget website last week, Jon Fingus recounted his attempts to reach Klayman: "We tried getting in touch with Klayman to set the record straight, but this just underscored what looks to be his (and DMM's) rapid retreat from public scrutiny. He never responded after we pinged three phone numbers and two email addresses...</p><p>"We don't know for certain whether the company just mismanaged its crisis handling or forged ahead knowing that problems were coming," Fingus continued. "At a minimum, it's been dishonest in the wake of shipping troubles. For the number of customers who did get their orders, there are still many who were either left in the dark or were told shipping had started when it clearly hadn't."</p><p>Fingus wrote that he'd "spoken to a source close to the company" who "reinforced our suspicions that management was a significant issue, but otherwise reiterated the company's official position that customs delays (in both the United States and China) triggered problems."</p><p>Concluded Fingus: "Much as we'd suspected, the Matrix One may just be too good to be true."</p><p>Google, according to the Matrix One webpage, "has informed us that they have begun to refund customers."</p><p>As for the $99 tablet, it's time to rework the stale punch line: If I didn't have them, I could sell you one for $50.</p><p> </p><p>[ Lonnie Brown has written the computer column for The Ledger for more than 30 years. He can be reached by e-mail at LedgerDatabase@aol.com. ]</p>